Derivative I

It customises when it does not accustom. And the custom is the custom.

Water in two places is a broken river.

Water in three places is a drought. The time it takes between them, an indecision in the distance, stimulates a thirst.

We can never be accustomed to the customising. Or customisation is but the superlative of a made-in-the-aesthetics difference.

Water in a river is horizon to the rainfall. River bed and cloud activity are height and fundament to a perfect square.

The customised have always been well-accustomed. Or there is no difference.

A back and forth movement promotes survival. This is two ways in the one way, instead of just the one way in the way.

There will only be a limited sort of sunshine to umbrella knowledge. And after an active cloud period, around its outer shell, concave, cloud-resistant, a mote forms, un-river. Only another broken pilgrimage for the thirsty to back and forth up to.

Then, cupping water in the hands so to speak of a thirsty mouthful. But up-side-down-umbrella does not solve the thirst; it only drowns it.

This, the establishment of distance as waterwork. But water only runs up to an unwatered coast.

The edge of a surface can either be walked off or walked into. Walking along instantiates the abyss. Inevitably, such an instantiation makes everything fall.

The surface of the thing can be cut away as the surface of the water can be cut down. Neither of them can be looked after.

The surface of the thing cannot be cut home as the surface of the water cannot be cut up. Both should be looked at after.

Two people looking at each other constitutes a reflection.

Two people side-by-side are with each other. It is popular for these people, despite not being all the population. Perhaps because they will populate if they are also popular with each other.

A reference to hold them here significantly could either be about to dry them up or dry them out.

To rather know the head people or the head of people?

To respond rather to the responsible or in itself make a question of responsibility?

One now is the same as two before, and two before four before them. The history of one is two. There are two histories to every history. And four histories to every two histories of one history. Things get bigger the further back they go.

A thing going back is a forward thing making itself up into its most forward position again.

There is a second history to forward thinking that explains the missing history of history interacting with itself.

Two histories looking at each other cannot see each other.

There is a history of histories coming after one another.

It historicises when two histories go after each other. Especially if they try to go after each other at the same time.

People looking for historical change are a part of history. History will surely have still more to say about this.

The water level cannot line up with the coastal platform. A body in the water will never be as tall as a body on the ground. Perhaps something for height and fundament revision.

There is a number to the many people who have been living without night time kisses.

Individuality is going to be less unique if everyone does it. The unique numbers go down as the individual numbers go up.

A split personality comes out of a set of difficult decisions made as well as possible.

As long as we remain, we should be suspicious of the compatible things. The customising and the accustomed.

To question how the compatible might be able to re-main everything. Bodies in the water, no river in the distance, two become one, the sudden appearance of all the individuality out of its presupposable opposite.

Advertisement

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s